Post New

Migrant Encounters at Border Hit Historic Low Not Seen Since Nixon Administration

SNIP
“Southwest border apprehensions are at the lowest level in half a century, and criminal cartels are running out of ways to line their pockets at our expense. Americans can thank President Trump’s proven border security policies for these results, from surging resources to the Southwest border to ending catch-and-release,” Chairman Andrew Garbarino, a Republican from New York, said

After four years of the Biden-Harris Administration’s disastrous open-border agenda and reckless catch-and-release policies, the American people are finally seeing a return to law and order at our southern border,” Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence Chairman August Pfluger, a Republican from Texas,

“Thanks to the strong leadership of the Trump Administration, our borders and our homeland are more secure today than they have been in years,” he said.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/02/migrant-e...

78 million Americans citizens voted for President Trump to close the border and deport illegal aliens.
A few thousand citizens turn criminals are rioting in the streets to keep murderers, rapists, drug runners, sex traffickers etc from being deported. Why? What is wrong with these people?

Good. Now, if they could deal with the illegals already here, without resorting to brutality, and without rousting US citizens, I would be delighted.

Steve

Just watch. In a couple of years some lib will disingenuously point to low deportation numbers and somehow try and use it as a criticism.

Just watch. In a couple of years some lib will disingenuously point to low deportation numbers and somehow try and use it as a criticism.

With an estimated 20M illegals in the US, I doubt ICE will run out of legitimately illegal immigrants to deport.

Steve

Why? What is wrong with these people?

Because the criminals and pedophiles are still in positions of power in the US and its govt.

A few thousand citizens turn criminals are rioting in the streets to keep murderers, rapists, drug runners, sex traffickers etc from being deported. Why? What is wrong with these people?

Nothing. They're not trying to keep murderers, rapists, drug runners, and sex traffickers from being deported.

They're protesting in order to make ICE differentiate between those people and the otherwise law-abiding people who do not deserve to be put through the harshest levels of immigration enforcement the way the actual violent criminals do.

It's the same reason why we have protections in criminal law. We don't insist on a trial by jury because we want murderers to go free. We insist on it because we want to make sure that the process is just, and that the people who deserve the harshest sanction of the law are treated differently from the people who do not deserve those harsh sanctions.

Can you really not see that?

They're protesting in order to make ICE differentiate between those people and the otherwise law-abiding people who do not deserve to be put through the harshest levels of immigration enforcement the way the actual violent criminals do.

This point has been hammered on- over and over and over for the major portion of the last year.

Yet still the feigned ignorance continues. And if pushed, they sometimes even admit that they have no problem treating all undocumented as criminals…… yet even that doesn’t capture the horror of men, women and children being “detained”, facing no judicial hearing, and being “processed” out of the country- often to places they’ve never been to.

In fact, these constitute the vast majority.


70,000 are currently detained in concentration camps (the precise term for the places where they are being held.)

Noem and Miller are currently expanding the capacity of these camps to hold twice that number within the next few months.

MAGA cheers.

70,000 are currently detained in concentration camps (the precise term for the places where they are being held.)


And most (all?) of these are private entities making lots of money off us taxpayers. Another way for Trump to reward his cronies, just like he has done with the ridiculous border wall.

They're protesting in order to make ICE differentiate between those people and the otherwise law-abiding people who do not deserve to be put through the harshest levels of immigration enforcement the way the actual violent criminals do.

It's the same reason why we have protections in criminal law. We don't insist on a trial by jury because we want murderers to go free. We insist on it because we want to make sure that the process is just, and that the people who deserve the harshest sanction of the law are treated differently from the people who do not deserve those harsh sanctions.

Can you really not see that?

Then they should be working to overturn the Sanctuary City laws, which enable all the scenarios that you say liberals are fighting against.

If ICE can go to the jail and pick up someone in the hallway, that's a heck of a lot better than going into neighborhoods.

So why aren't liberals overturning the Sanctuary laws?

Then they should be working to overturn the Sanctuary City laws, which enable all the scenarios that you say liberals are fighting against.

If ICE can go to the jail and pick up someone in the hallway, that's a heck of a lot better than going into neighborhoods.

So why aren't liberals overturning the Sanctuary laws?

For the same reason. Not everyone in the hallway of a jail has committed a serious crime. Most people that are arrested are never even charged with anything or have the charges dropped. Some people that are arrested are acquitted. Many people that have been arrested for a crime are arrested for minor crimes. Etc.

Sanctuary policies aren't driven by a desire to protect the murderers. They're driven by a desire to protect the folks who haven't committed a crime serious enough to warrant being thrown to ICE.

For the same reason. Not everyone in the hallway of a jail has committed a serious crime.

Ah. So now liberals believe that the "seriousness" of the charge is the deciding factor.

Sanctuary policies aren't driven by a desire to protect the murderers. They're driven by a desire to protect the folks who haven't committed a crime serious enough to warrant being thrown to ICE.

LOL. This is what Sanctuary policies buy you:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/illegal-alien...

German Llangari Inga, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador, has been charged with vehicular homicide in connection with the August 2024 death of Victoria Eileen Harwell, a mother from Minnesota.

The case has drawn attention due to allegations that local authorities twice failed to honor immigration detainers for Llangari Inga, allowing his release before his eventual re-arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

So why was he arrested?

Immediately after his initial arrest for criminal vehicular homicide on August 4, 2024, ICE placed a detainer on Llangari Inga. However, the Hennepin County Jail allegedly refused to honor the detainer, and he was released on August 6, 2024, without any notification to ICE.

Llangari Inga was apprehended again on May 10, 2025, based on an outstanding warrant for vehicular homicide issued by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office. ICE once again placed a detainer on the same day. For a second time, he was reportedly released by Hennepin County authorities on May 13, again without notification to ICE.

I guess vehicular homicide doesn't meet the bar for "serious"?

So why aren't liberals overturning the Sanctuary laws?

I agree. If people don't like immigration laws as they are, they should work through the democratic system to change the law, not ignore it.

Steve

Ah. So now liberals believe that the "seriousness" of the charge is the deciding factor.

Yes! Why do say "now"? Many liberals have always felt that the problem with federal immigration law enforcement is that it does not distinguish between people who are genuine dangers to their community and people that are generally law-abiding and pose no threat.

Most of the people who are in those "jail hallways" are either: i) not going to be charged; ii) are there for misdemeanor offenses like drug possession or minor property crimes. 70-80% of arrests are for misdemeanors - fewer than 5% are for serious violent crimes. That was even more true back when sanctuary laws were being first put on the books in most of these places, and drug possession charges made up a large proportion of arrests.

I guess vehicular homicide doesn't meet the bar for "serious"?

Of course it does. The issue isn't whether there exist the 5% of people that are arrested for serious violent crimes; the issue is whether the other 95% deserve to have the same treatment as the 5%.

I mean - do you think that someone who got picked up for a drunk and disorderly, or minor drug possession, deserves to have the same consequences as the guy who killed someone? That it's the just outcome for that guy's kids to grow up without a father, or his wife to have to raise them without a husband, for some minor misdemeanor charges (that would likely get dropped)?

The issue isn't over making the truly bad get major consequences. It's about whether those same major consequences get imposed indiscriminately on the people who are genuinely not truly bad.

Yes! Why do say "now"? Many liberals have always felt that the problem with federal immigration law enforcement is that it does not distinguish between people who are genuine dangers to their community and people that are generally law-abiding and pose no threat.

Uh, huh. Here's one of many problems with this: "Serious". Somehow, the word "serious" is never mentioned.
I'd say vehicular homicide is "serious", but sanctuary laws (and evidently mainstream liberal thought) disagrees. Convenient, that.

Most of the people who are in those "jail hallways" are either: i) not going to be charged; ii) are there for misdemeanor offenses like drug possession or minor property crimes.

So they've committed crimes on top of being an illegal alien. And by refusing the retainers, the local jurisdictions appoint themselves arbiters of who gets to stay and who needs to leave the country.

That's power and moral authority that sanctuary cities lack. Bigly.

Of course it does. The issue isn't whether there exist the 5% of people that are arrested for serious violent crimes; the issue is whether the other 95% deserve to have the same treatment as the 5%.

And now you're back to your framework thing, which cloaks the sanctuary policies in the warm blanket of emotional cover in the form of "It's our principle that it's better a hundred guilty men go free than 1 innocent one going to jail".

Slight problem: The people making this judgement have no standing to do so.

It's about whether those same major consequences get imposed indiscriminately on the people who are genuinely not truly bad.

Which isn't the job of these local jurisdictions.

Steve has it right: if you don't like the immigration laws, change the immigration laws. You don't get to just ignore them because Reasons.

Of course it does. The issue isn't whether there exist the 5% of people that are arrested for serious violent crimes; the issue is whether the other 95% deserve to have the same treatment as the 5%.

In the eyes of MAGA, apparently, yes. I posted the Fox Noise poll results a few days ago. iirc, something like 27% of Republicans say ICE is being too aggressive. 29% of Republicans said ICE isn't being brutal enough.

Steve

I'd say vehicular homicide is "serious", but sanctuary laws (and evidently mainstream liberal thought) disagrees. Convenient, that.

No, they don't. Sanctuary laws and mainstream liberal thought don't think vehicular homicide is not serious. Sanctuary proponents believe that many other crimes are not serious enough to warrant being thrown to ICE, especially the minor misdemeanor and drug possession charges that make up the majority of arrests.

So they've committed crimes on top of being an illegal alien. And by refusing the retainers, the local jurisdictions appoint themselves arbiters of who gets to stay and who needs to leave the country.

That's power and moral authority that sanctuary cities lack. Bigly.

They don't lack it at all. They have power over their own resources. They can't prevent the federal government from making immigration law or the federal government from enforcing it however they want. But they get to decide whether a particular use of their own resources is for the benefit of their community.

Which isn't the job of these local jurisdictions.

Steve has it right: if you don't like the immigration laws, change the immigration laws. You don't get to just ignore them because Reasons.

They're not ignoring immigration laws. There's no law that says that local governments have to comply with ICE detainers. ICE doesn't even claim that. These are requests, not statutory obligations. If ICE tried to turn them into orders, or Congress tried to enact a statute forcing states to do this, it would probably be unconstitutional. But we're not at that point. States are perfectly free to choose not to put their own resources in service of enforcing federal immigration law.

No, they don't. Sanctuary laws and mainstream liberal thought don't think vehicular homicide is not serious. Sanctuary proponents believe that many other crimes are not serious enough to warrant being thrown to ICE, especially the minor misdemeanor and drug possession charges that make up the majority of arrests.

And yet, they don't discriminate - much less define - "serious" vs. "not serious".

They don't lack it at all.

Yes they do. I get that blue states and cities feel like their emotional impulses should be the defining reasons why something is in the actual law or not but that's not the way it is.

They have power over their own resources. They can't prevent the federal government from making immigration law or the federal government from enforcing it however they want. But they get to decide whether a particular use of their own resources is for the benefit of their community.


Sure. They can avoid arresting *anyone* for a federal crime if they want to. They can avoid helping the feds track down terrorists, money launderers, drug runners, child traffickers, any of it.

But they never frame it that way, do they?

They're not ignoring immigration laws. There's no law that says that local governments have to comply with ICE detainers. ICE doesn't even claim that. These are requests, not statutory obligations. If ICE tried to turn them into orders, or Congress tried to enact a statute forcing states to do this, it would probably be unconstitutional. But we're not at that point. States are perfectly free to choose not to put their own resources in service of enforcing federal immigration law.

This playing games with words, sorry. There's no law that says Illinois authorities have to arrest an Al Capone either but they would have if J. Edgar Hoover had asked them to. If Osama Bin Laden had been spotted in Chicago ca2002 CPD would have been happy to slap the cuffs on him.

But because of their emotional decisions, they've passed these statutes in an attempt to impose their (very much not agreed to by the general population) views on national immigration policy on the rest of us.

And the results? Dead citizens because politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions "just know better".

For the same reason. Not everyone in the hallway of a jail has committed a serious crime. Most people that are arrested are never even charged with anything or have the charges dropped. Some people that are arrested are acquitted. Many people that have been arrested for a crime are arrested for minor crimes. Etc. - albaby

-----------------

When the system is working the locals cops identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up. This puts the local in control of who is picked up. It is not like ICE roams the halls of the jail looking for brown people as you imply.

And yet, they don't discriminate - much less define - "serious" vs. "not serious".

Sure - because, again, that's not the only variable. Most people in the jail haven't been convicted, may not even have been formally charged - and even those that are, and may even be charged for serious crimes, will have their charges dropped.

Sure. They can avoid arresting *anyone* for a federal crime if they want to. They can avoid helping the feds track down terrorists, money launderers, drug runners, child traffickers, any of it.

But they never frame it that way, do they?

Because those are all informal decisions. If the feds called up your local police force and said, "hey, we're putting together a task force to rigorously crack down on people sharing their Netflix passwords, and want a bunch of your officers to be assigned to that...." there's a pretty good chance they might be told, "no."

This playing games with words, sorry. There's no law that says Illinois authorities have to arrest an Al Capone either but they would have if J. Edgar Hoover had asked them to. If Osama Bin Laden had been spotted in Chicago ca2002 CPD would have been happy to slap the cuffs on him.

But because of their emotional decisions, they've passed these statutes in an attempt to impose their (very much not agreed to by the general population) views on national immigration policy on the rest of us.

Yes, because those are serious hardened criminals.

This isn't about "emotional decisions." Proportionality and justice are serious moral and ethical concerns with any system that involves the use of force by the state. It underlies all criminal justice systems and many civil enforcement processes as well. It is important that whatever processes you have do not punish the person who has shared a Netflix password or stolen cable or made unauthorized copies of the latest Taylor Swift album with the same severity as someone who commits a murder. That's not an "emotional decision," it's one of the (many) core competing interests at play.

Most conservatives strongly prioritize order, security, and enforcement of rules over other interests. That's fine - different people have different ways of prioritizing things about the world. That doesn't mean that interests like "proportional fairness" and "avoiding harm to those who don't serve the harm" aren't important as well.

So why aren't liberals overturning the Sanctuary laws?

To avoid paying HIGHER TAXES. Anyone with a brain knows THAT. You do NOT? Hmmm....

When the system is working the locals cops identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up. This puts the local in control of who is picked up. It is not like ICE roams the halls of the jail looking for brown people as you imply.

They don't "roam the halls," but per ICE the request for detainer originates from them. Note the local official. The local doesn't have any choice in who ICE decides to issue a detainer for....at least according to what ICE says:

https://www.ice.gov/immigration-detainers

Sure - because, again, that's not the only variable. Most people in the jail haven't been convicted, may not even have been formally charged - and even those that are, and may even be charged for serious crimes, will have their charges dropped.

The people that have ICE detainers on them have effectively criminal warrants out on them. These sanctuary laws basically say Pffft to that.

This isn't about "emotional decisions."

Yes it is. You're using a lot of handwaving here to basically explain why your feelings around your value judgements effectively override the law of the land.

Instead of doing the heavy lifting to support policy that's driven from the federal level sanctuary outfits choose to effectively override it.

Proportionality and justice are serious moral and ethical concerns with any system that involves the use of force by the state. It underlies all criminal justice systems and many civil enforcement processes as well. It is important that whatever processes you have do not punish the person who has shared a Netflix password or stolen cable or made unauthorized copies of the latest Taylor Swift album with the same severity as someone who commits a murder. That's not an "emotional decision," it's one of the (many) core competing interests at play.

This is great and all, but sanctuary outfits are releasing murderers like the guy I mentioned. There's no distinction being made at all - they just kick them out the door because F to the feds.

Most conservatives strongly prioritize order, security, and enforcement of rules over other interests. That's fine - different people have different ways of prioritizing things about the world. That doesn't mean that interests like "proportional fairness" and "avoiding harm to those who don't serve the harm" aren't important as well.

Great strawman, because no one's said they don't. Sanctuary cities don't have the authority to effectively override federal criminal warrants but here they are doing it every day.

We are a system based on laws. If you don't like a law, you can change. But blue places don't have the support for the policies they want so instead they play these games to get their way. The moral preening that goes along is the high-handed justification.

When the system is working the locals cops identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up. This puts the local in control of who is picked up. It is not like ICE roams the halls of the jail looking for brown people as you imply.

This issue comes down to one thing: respecting elections.

The left claims to, but never does. They believe they're entitled to power and as such when they don't have they make moves to override the loss in various creative ways. Sanctuary policies are a way to keep people in the country who shouldn't be here, period, full stop.

Heads they win. Tails you and I lose. That's how they view the world.

The people making this judgement have no standing to do so.

Wrong. Again.

The voters decided--not anyone else.

Why? Because the feds DON'T PAY, and the Supreme Court said "no pay, no requirement to play" at the local/city/state level.

If YOU don't like THAT, require the feds TO PAY IN FULL EVERY TIME.

THAT avoids the Supreme Court ruling. Or do YOU have problems with Supreme Court rulings?

The people that have ICE detainers on them have effectively criminal warrants out on them.

Says who? Not everyone in a jail hallway has a criminal warrant against them. Not everyone that has a criminal warrant out on them is guilty.

Yes it is. You're using a lot of handwaving here to basically explain why your feelings around your value judgements effectively override the law of the land.

What "law of the land"? There's no law that says local governments have to do this. They're not "overriding" the law of the land.

And we frequently use value judgments that aren't emotional to make choices on enforcement and allocation of law enforcement resources - which is why you can buy pot in many states, even though under federal law it's just the same as cocaine.

Great strawman, because no one's said they don't. Sanctuary cities don't have the authority to effectively override federal criminal warrants but here they are doing it every day.

Wait - these aren't federal criminal warrants. ICE has no power to issue a federal criminal warrant. These are detainer requests. They have no force of law. So they are entirely within the realm of what local governments are legally entitled to make decisions about.

But they never frame it that way, do they?

For the same reason GOP isn't called Gay Old Perverts--even when they are.

The sanctuary stuff doesn't happen until AFTER THE FACT--not before.

Which shows how totally clueless your sources must be.

And why you are equally clueless.

When the system is working the locals cops identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up.

That is what happens in MN.

The problem?

ICE IS A NO SHOW.

So, explain YOUR problem again. In words YOU understand.

When ICE shows up, the transfer happens in a secure area--not some public hallway.

Now whoda thunk of THAT ????

>>When the system is working the locals cops identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up. This puts the local in control of who is picked up. It is not like ICE roams the halls of the jail looking for brown people as you imply.<<

They don't "roam the halls," but per ICE the request for detainer originates from them. Note the local official. The local doesn't have any choice in who ICE decides to issue a detainer for....at least according to what ICE says:

----------------------

Of course only ICE can issue an ICE detainer. All that means is you already have x in custody. Please let us know when you done with him, and we will take custody and remove them from your neighbor hood. Locals still have control on which detainers they honor.

Right now sanctuary policy demands that the number turned over be zero regardless of the individuals criminal aliens rap sheet. The locals release pedophiles, rapists multi DUI, assaults, drug dealing, even homicidal illegals with multiple previous convictions already on their rap sheets back into the community where they continue to prey on their communities. Why?

sanctuary outfits are releasing murderers like the guy I mentioned

ICE NO SHOW--AGAIN ??? What a surprise....

Whose fault is that? City/state not allowed to hold beyond release date--PER LAW.

YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING THE LAW ????

Or are you having another "selective Alzheimer's" moment?

Says who? Not everyone in a jail hallway has a criminal warrant against them. Not everyone that has a criminal warrant out on them is guilty.

This takes the position that ICE just randomly rounds people up for no reason.

That's not the case. Oh, the democrats and the media want to portray ICE as some kind of malevolent entity randomly driving around in black vans kidnapping people off the street, but that's not how this works: to get on ICE's radar, you probably screwed up.

Take the "ICE arrested dude with the 10 year old" story. On its face it looks bad. But that's why one has to DIG to get to the truth:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwes...

Arnoldo Tiul Caal dropped his daughter off for school at Logan Elementary the morning of Jan. 9 with the unnerving sense that they were being followed.

After seeing 10-year-old Karla Tiul Baltazar off to her class, Tiul Caal didn’t make it back to their nearby apartment before he was stopped by federal immigration agents, detained and taken to a Border Patrol office in North Spokane.

Tiul Caal has been in Spokane for six years, said Olga Lucia Herrera, who has been volunteering to help him through court proceedings and regular check-ins with immigration officials in that time. He does not have a criminal record.

Oh, my! The Gestapo tactics!

Complete with all the tugging of the heartstrings. But what happens when one bothers to dig deeper?

https://seattlered.com/seattle-red/jason-rantz-opi...

“He has an active asylum case and a court date for 2027, a valid work permit and a Social Security number, Herrera said,” according to The Spokesman-Review, citing Olga Lucia Herrera, a volunteer helping him navigate court proceedings. They do not explain why he was seeking asylum. “He had made nearly every appointment for a regular check-in with immigration officials, except for a recent date around the holidays when he was having phone problems.”

A later article then quotes Governor Bob Ferguson using this incident to slam President Donald Trump.

The problem? This isn’t true, according to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). And Tiul-Caal’s problems started during the Biden administration.

Whoops.

“In 2023, Tiul-Caal missed three check-in appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement-Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE-ERO) and was issued another notice to appear,” according to a CBP spokesperson. “Between Oct. 21, 2024, and May 1, 2025, he missed seven additional check ins with ICE-ERO. On July 10, 2025, Tiul-Caal was terminated from ICE’s Alternatives to Detention program due to noncompliance after seven more violations.”

So. 3+7+7 equals 17 times this guy failed to appear.

What would you have ICE do here?

Again, to get on ICE's radar you have to be some kind of F-up in the first place, like this guy is. 17 chances. How many do you want to give these people?

Here's a great summary:
Readers can disagree with immigration policy. They can dislike detention as a tactic. But they cannot fairly judge what happened if the press sells only the sympathetic half of the story and treats the enforcement half as an inconvenience. How many missed check-ins and terminations from detention alternatives should qualify for detainment? Left-wing media, apparently, believes the number should be endless.

This could have been avoided had the Spokesman-Review, and other outlets like the Seattle Times, didn’t rely on “facts” to be relayed by advocates. Herrera’s claims were uncritically reprinted. No fact-checking at all and it’s unclear how much time the paper even gave to CBP to respond to their questions. This all seems very intentional.

This. The immigration debate in this country is often held in very bad faith.

All that means is you already have x in custody.

Wow, are you FOS.

It means they THINK the local police/jail have x in custody.

"Data on the exact percentage of all inmates in Minnesota jails with ICE requests (detainers) is inconsistent. Recent reports indicate a discrepancy between federal figures suggesting around 1,360, and Minnesota Department of Corrections data stating about 300 individuals in state and county custody have ICE detainers. Over 600 people were transferred to ICE from MN jails last year."

Let's see if YOU can comprehend the arithmetic:

Requested: 1360
In MN jails: 300

300/1360 = 22%.

Far higher than a RWNJ IQ. So, lock up Noem as a documented FAILURE? AGAIN ???

"Conflicting Data: The Minnesota DOC reports that many individuals cited by federal authorities were never in state custody, have already been transferred, or are in other jurisdictions, according to the YouTube video."

"Actual Federal Detentions: According to a New York Times analysis of data from the Deportation Data Project, from Jan. 20 to Oct. 15, 2025, there were only 60 ICE arrests at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone and 18 at Faribault State Prison."

Looks like a good idea to lock Noem up at Sandstone. More of her 'type'? Ask her when she gets out in 40 yrs.

May 1 to "On July 10, 2025, Tiul-Caal was terminated from ICE’s Alternatives to Detention program due to noncompliance after seven more violations."

Seven appts in 70 days? Irrational. ZERO facts, just one-sided claims.

Here comes da judge....if the guy can get to the judge and actually HAVE a hearing.

The locals release pedophiles, rapists multi DUI, assaults, drug dealing, even homicidal illegals with multiple previous convictions already on their rap sheets back into the community where they continue to prey on their communities. Why?

The same reason they release all those people back into the community when they're not illegals - there's no legal reason under state law to hold them any more. They've made bail. Or their prison time is up. Or the charges were dropped. Or they got the wrong guy. Just because someone has a rap sheet doesn't mean that the state can just keep you in jail for as long as they want. By definition, these are all people who the jail or prison no longer has any legal authority to hold in their care, else they wouldn't be being released in the first place. I mean, state law enforcement releases tons of people with rap sheets, only a small fraction of which might be unauthorized, every day.

Just because someone has a rap sheet doesn't mean that the state can just keep you in jail for as long as they want. - albaby

----------------

The criminal illegal already as an established record, a rap sheet sometimes lengthy, of serious crimes already committed and where convictions are on record. He is deportable based on past felonies regardless of whatever crime got him arrested this time. I realize the locals are not compelled to help but why would they release such a dangerous person, one who has no right to be in the USA in the first place, back into the community when ICE is perfectly willing to take them off your hands and out of the community.

They are not keeping the alien felon in their jail for as long as they want, why exaggerate? ICE has the authority to detain him even if the state does not. So why would the mayor prefer to release a convicted multi pedophile to roam his community, when even the slightest bit of cooperation would get him off the streets and into an ICE detention center.

Then they should be working to overturn the Sanctuary City laws, which enable all the scenarios that you say liberals are fighting against.

That's a complete non-sequitur. Rape and murder are not federal crimes, so they don't even have jurisdiction over those. States/municipalities do. And if they arrest such a person, undocumented or not, they are held. All the sanctuary laws do is not obligate local LEOs to detain folks the Feds want. And, while I'm not sure of the legal difference, that is only folks that have "detainers" issued. They still comply with federal warrants.

It is clear it is an irritation for you (i.e. sanctuary cities), but it does not shield violent criminals in any way (which is what you are implying/stating). And it doesn't shield against federal warrants.

I realize the locals are not compelled to help but why would they release such a dangerous person, one who has no right to be in the USA in the first place, back into the community when ICE is perfectly willing to take them off your hands and out of the community.

I imagine because they consider the impacts of cooperating with ICE as not being especially severable, and that they outweigh the potential harms in those cases.

For example, one negative effect of having your state and local law enforcement cooperate with ICE is to reduce the degree that folks from the undocumented communities - and their family members and neighbors - will cooperate with your state and local law enforcement. If those folks stop trusting the police, it can hurt law enforcement efforts within that community. Local elected officials may determine that negative impact will be worse than the possible negative impact associated with not cooperating with ICE.

I don't know whether the answer is the right answer. I expect it may vary from community to community, and it might vary depending on the relative proportion of "worst of the worst" vs. ordinary folks that would be eligible for detainer and the resources necessary to try to figure out where to draw lines. But as with most things, if you look only at the very most extreme examples within the subject population (like a "multi pedophile") when a policy will have impacts on a much larger population, you'll get the wrong answer.

Migrant Encounters at Border Hit Historic Low Not Seen Since Nixon Administration

Sure. It's not that the borders is secure. It's that nobody wants to come here. Nobody wants to come to a shithole country where you can be kidnapped off the street by masked government agents, based on the color of your skin, and disappeared forever. It's also why encounters of tourists entering legally from Canada are at an historic low. The Iron Curtain used to be somewhere in Eastern Europe. Now it divides North America.

That's a complete non-sequitur. Rape and murder are not federal crimes, so they don't even have jurisdiction over those.

I'm sorry, I thought public safety was a universal issue. BTW cross states lines when committing one of the crimes you committed and you're now in federal territory.

It's not a non-sequitur. Sanctuary city policies are there because the democrats who run those towns don't like it when Republican administrations actually enforce the *national* laws. So they either hide behind this "Better a hundred guilty illegal aliens go free than 1 innocent illegal alien get deported" or just refuse to help out with a resource ask. Either way it ends up the same place with ICE out on the streets looking for these people.

Ergo, if democrats really cared about public safety they'd want ICE picking up people from jail directly.

But they don't.

It is clear it is an irritation for you (i.e. sanctuary cities), but it does not shield violent criminals in any way (which is what you are implying/stating). And it doesn't shield against federal warrants.

ICE detainer requests are rooted in somebody getting on the radar screen by doing something bad. Like missing 17 straight check-ins. We have to have standards.

And sanctuary cities (I live in the Proud Sanctuary city of Seattle, for the record) absolutely DO shield violent illegal immigrant. It's not up for discussion.

I'm sorry, I thought public safety was a universal issue.

Sure. But it's local jurisdiction in many/most cases. Except for kidnapping...that is federal because of the Lindbergh baby.

BTW cross states lines when committing one of the crimes you committed and you're now in federal territory.

Sure. But that generally is also a non-sequitur. If you kill Mike, and then flee to another state, that is not federal. The other state would catch you, and then an extradition hearing would be held to send you back to the original state of the crime. Feds really have nothing to do with it.

Sanctuary city policies are there because the democrats who run those towns don't like it when Republican administrations actually enforce the *national* laws.

As albaby has said, apparently they are -in most cases- not obligated to anyway. They have to honor federal warrants, but not "detainers". Certainly, states can help. But there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the sanctuary laws I have seen.

Either way it ends up the same place with ICE out on the streets looking for these people.

Which is sort of their job. The mess we have now is not because of sanctuary cities, but because ICE is using unlawful and excessive force. They've raided sweatshops and farms for decades. They have that authority, and responsibility. They should go back to doing that until we pass a law that puts the employers on the spot, not the migrants.

Ergo, if democrats really cared about public safety they'd want ICE picking up people from jail directly.

If they are already in jail, then they have to be adjudicated first. Once they get released from the jail, it's up to ICE to greet them at the gate (assuming it isn't a bail situation, in which case the issue has not yet been adjudicated).

Your insistence that Democrats want violent criminals on the street just isn't so. They have different ideas than you to accomplish NOT having violent criminals on the streets. Doesn't mean they want that.

ICE detainer requests are rooted in somebody getting on the radar screen by doing something bad. Like missing 17 straight check-ins. We have to have standards.

I will defer to albaby on this one, since I don't know this for a fact. However, I would guess that such behavior would generate a warrant. And those are honored/enforced.

Everything is up for discussion. Saying "End Of Discussion" doesn't mean it is. Do you tell your kids (or did you parents tell you) "because I said so"? That's not a valid reason, and not really a valid way of ending discussion. If Seattle wasn't honoring federal warrants, they'd be in a lot of trouble. Detain requests are a different animal (not issued by a judge?). You'll have to support your assertion with more than "end of discussion", sorry.

As albaby has said, apparently they are -in most cases- not obligated to anyway. They have to honor federal warrants, but not "detainers". Certainly, states can help. But there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the sanctuary laws I have seen.


And There's the non-sequitur. One that actually proves my point: they don't like deportation laws and as such aren't going to lift a finger to help enforce them.

Which is sort of their job. The mess we have now is not because of sanctuary cities, but because ICE is using unlawful and excessive force. They've raided sweatshops and farms for decades. They have that authority, and responsibility. They should go back to doing that until we pass a law that puts the employers on the spot, not the migrants.

No, no, and no.
ICE is issuing detainers for people and sanctuary places blow them off. Is ICE supposed to just forget about Bad Guy X? No - so they have to go track him down and arrest him. Then to make matters worse, local "activists" decide to impede law enforcement from doing their jobs. You don't see any riots in Texas or Tennessee or Alabama or Florida because of the cooperation.

Sanctuary cities like Portland and Minneapolis are creating the scenarios where these activists are getting hurt and that's entirely on them.

If they are already in jail, then they have to be adjudicated first. Once they get released from the jail, it's up to ICE to greet them at the gate (assuming it isn't a bail situation, in which case the issue has not yet been adjudicated).

If ICE has a detainer on a guy who's missed 17 check ins and deserves to be deported, then why not deport him?

I will defer to albaby on this one, since I don't know this for a fact. However, I would guess that such behavior would generate a warrant. And those are honored/enforced.

Not necessarily. Al's trying to claim that the folks in jail don't always get charged so there's no reason to call ICE but that skips over the fact that people get on ICE's radar for...things like missing their check ins or otherwise violating administrative immigration policy. And for that they should be sent packing.

Everything is up for discussion. Saying "End Of Discussion" doesn't mean it is.

When it comes to the idea that releasing violent criminals out in the public doesn't increase crime and lower public safety, yeah, there's no real discussion there. Because releasing violent criminals to re-offend because you don't like ICE (like the vehicular manslaughter guy) just puts the public at more risk. I guess one of you could make the College Try of trying to argue that oh, no, these guys are Total Angels when they get set free but you'd have to ignore thousands of cases offenders re-offending to do it.

But if you want to, go for it.

And when you do, I'm going to turn your framework and use it against your argument :).

For example, one negative effect of having your state and local law enforcement cooperate with ICE is to reduce the degree that folks from the undocumented communities - and their family members and neighbors - will cooperate with your state and local law enforcement. If those folks stop trusting the police, it can hurt law enforcement efforts within that community. Local elected officials may determine that negative impact will be worse than the possible negative impact associated with not cooperating with ICE.

Lack of cooperation by the public is on of the large factors cited in the decline of the murder solution rate from 90% in the 60s to 60% ~2010. Ten to fifteen years ago the murder solution rate in the Philippines was dismal ~22%. When Duterte took over it dropped further. I think 60% is pretty bad for us and we need to do better. Contrary to the movies or TV series, most murders are solved by shoe leather - Police going around and talking to people, getting videotape, etc. Police documenting and interviewing witnesses really helps, but if people won't or are reluctant to talk to police - the solution rate drops. We need people to talk to our police.

We have to have standards.

How many felonies is "enough"?

I'm going to turn your framework

Still waiting for your "framework" regarding felonies.

Yup.

Minneapolis is a sanctuary city in exactly the same way the Mos Eisley Cantina was a sanctuary for the filthiest scum in the galaxy.

You got the death penalty in seven star systems, why, you'll be welcome in Minneapolis.

When the system is working the locals cops identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up. This puts the local in control of who is picked up. It is not like ICE roams the halls of the jail looking for brown people as you imply.

This issue comes down to one thing: respecting elections.

That's great, except that isn't how the system works

"ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) determines when a person is in local detention primarily through the "Secure Communities" program, which automatically checks fingerprints submitted by local jails against DHS databases. When a person is booked locally, their biometrics are sent to the FBI, which instantly shares them with ICE."

So "the locals cops do not usually identify the specific criminal alien for ICE to come and pick up." They share information.

And from this information, Dope deduces that libs don't respect elections and talks about that.

And There's the non-sequitur. One that actually proves my point: they don't like deportation laws and as such aren't going to lift a finger to help enforce them.

That may or may not be. Could just be a matter of resource allocation. Regardless, whatever the motivation, they are not obligated to assist the Feds unless the Feds have a judicial warrant. That's really all that is relevant (at least until the law changes).

If ICE has a detainer on a guy who's missed 17 check ins and deserves to be deported, then why not deport him?

In principle, I might agree. But...if it's only a "detainer", they still are not obligated. Why don't they get an actual warrant, instead? That is enforceable in every city in the country. Maybe even on Native American reservations (in fact, I'm pretty sure there, too), which are only quasi-US territory. The warrant is a bit more work, I suspect, but it gives the Feds unquestioned authority to get the target person.

When it comes to the idea that releasing violent criminals out in the public doesn't increase crime and lower public safety, yeah, there's no real discussion there.

Sure. Good thing no one is doing that. The violent criminals tend to stay in jail when caught. And without documents they would be a flight risk, so almost certainly no bail. No community wants them released until properly adjudicated.

The right wing seems to lump them all into "violent criminals", when the data show that -as a percentage of their population- you're in far more danger from your fellow Americans than you are from undocumented migrants. It's just a scare tactic designed to inflame. A tactic that the data simply do not support.

That may or may not be. Could just be a matter of resource allocation.

Riiiiight. They don't have the manpower to pick up the phone and make 1 call to ICE when they're already holding a guy.

In principle, I might agree. But...if it's only a "detainer", they still are not obligated. Why don't they get an actual warrant, instead?

An actual warrant for what? Deportation order, missed check ins, all that stuff are civil infractions.

Sure. Good thing no one is doing that

Sure about that one? Plenty of stories about how sanctuary jurisdictions have released some really bad people back out into the wild in the name of "principle". It's the citizens of these jurisdictions that end up paying the price.

Which brings us neatly to Al's framework: Better a hundred borderline really bad guy illegals get deported than a single citizen become a victim of one of their crimes.

The right wing seems to lump them all into "violent criminals", when the data show that -as a percentage of their population- you're in far more danger from your fellow Americans than you are from undocumented migrants. It's just a scare tactic designed to inflame. A tactic that the data simply do not support.

Here's the thing. 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. The only fact up for debate is what percentage are violent and/or repeat offenders.

Dope1,

The leftists are trying to change the narrative and the law and to shift the goalposts once again.

There is no requirement that an illegal alien be adjudicated a "violent criminal" in order to be subject to the nation's immigration laws.

None.

Zero.

Aside from whatever proportion of them are violent (even one is too many), they are, by definition, grifters, con artists, and scammers.

They are scofflaws who don't give a crap about our nation's laws and if they think they can get away with violating whatever the law is, they will certainly do so.

There is no requirement that an illegal alien be adjudicated a "violent criminal" in order to be subject to the nation's immigration laws.

This is true. Being here illegally, by itself, is grounds for removal. It is the regime that keeps saying every illegal is a "violent criminal", and every USian that objects to their tactics is a "domestic terrorist".

Steve

It is the regime that keeps saying every illegal is a "violent criminal", and every USian that objects to their tactics is a "domestic terrorist".

Bears repeating.

Here's the thing. 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals.

As albaby has explained (several times now), no they aren't. That's why when they are caught, they are deported. Not imprisoned.

Unless you know something about how these laws work that albaby doesn't? In which case, please enlighten us. (Not intended as snark...truly...enlighten us.) Otherwise, stop referring to them as "criminals" (except for the ones who actually are, of course). For whatever reason, we don't have a law against being present in the US without documents (evidently). If you pass one, then they would be criminals just by being here.

As albaby has explained (several times now), no they aren't. That's why when they are caught, they are deported. Not imprisoned.

He can - and has - provided his interpretation all he wants. The fact is they're here illegally. They made some choice or other to put themselves on the wrong side of the law. That's a fact.

Now you, and he, and everyone else here can bandy words all you want about the meaning of the words "criminal" or "illegal" all you want but none of you are really engaging in the most pertinent issue at hand:

What should be done about them?

For some reason, this board shrinks from solutions. Do you want a general amnesty? If so, what are you offering in return?

What should be done about them?

How about doing the "Ronnie Raygun"? Worked for YOU AND the RIGHT.

Or is it misfiring--AGAIN?

Now you, and he, and everyone else here can bandy words all you want about the meaning of the words "criminal" or "illegal" all you want but none of you are really engaging in the most pertinent issue at hand:

But it really isn't "bandying words", exactly. The law is what it is. So called "technicalities" are part of the law. One thing is a crime, another isn't. The law has to be very precise to remove as much prejudice as possible from proceedings that could result in deprivation of freedoms for an individual. If you have your PhD in a hard science, you know that how you phrase something affects the message being relayed (for example, in a paper). Same thing for the law.

What should be done about them?

NOT what we presently are doing. The net is too wide, it's catching people that shouldn't be caught, which results in unnecessary expenditures of resources (e.g. flying a dad and son to TX, only to figure out they can be here, and then fly them back from TX). Not sweeping courthouses for people that are doing what they are supposed to do by showing up for their court dates. That actually has a negative effect in that now they are afraid to show up for their court dates. Nobody who has paperwork pending should be rounded up and deported, at least in part because they aren't "undocumented"...they have documents that allow them to be here until their case is adjudicated. If they don't show up for their case, issue a deportation order (and then deport them when they are found).

The Felon said "worst of the worst" and "really bad dudes". OK, I can get behind that. The bad ones, send them to prison for whatever they did, and then deport them when they served their time. Have ICE waiting for them at the prison gates. I don't think you'll get much argument from anyone about that.

I think the entire system needs reforming (even before Noem and Miller started the pogrom). Lots of moving parts. With that caveat, what to do with them? If they aren't bothering anyone, then just deal with them if you catch them doing something. For example, while being undocumented in this country is not itself a crime, having phony documents is (e.g. a phony SS number...I looked that one up just to be certain). If they do the latter, and you catch them, then deport them. If they're living quiet lives, leave them alone. They'll never be citizens, and if they tried their status would quickly be determined, and they'd get deported. If they run afoul of the law, deport them (after whatever appropriate punishment for whatever offense put them afoul of the law).

If we put the onus on employers to determine resident/work status, most of the undocumented population would self-deport because they couldn't get a job. No job, no ability to stay here. That would likely solve 90%+ of the problem right there. That remaining few percent, as long as they aren't doing something bad, ignore them. Not worth the resources, and lives lost, to hunt them.

Same thing for the law.

They’re on the wrong side of it. Period. Calling them criminals or not isn’t really relevant when you boil it down to that fact alone.

NOT what we presently are doing. The net is too wide, it's catching people that shouldn't be caught,

Are they illegal or not? Have they skipped check ins or are they subject to deportation orders or not?

Because if they have skipped appointments. Aren’t in one of the programs designed to keep people out of the shadows or are under an active deportation order…


…then they’ve had their chances and need right go.

That actually has a negative effect in that now they are afraid to show up for their court dates.

You know that when I E shows up to a courthouse that person who’s in front of the judge is likely there for some crime they committed, right? Or that they fall into one of the categories I listed above?

If they don’t show up to court for, say, Assault 4 what does that say about them?

If they're living quiet lives, leave them alone. They'll never be citizens, and if they tried their status would quickly be determined, and they'd get deported. If they run afoul of the law, deport them (after whatever appropriate punishment for whatever offense put them afoul of the law).


But there’s much more to it. Al ducked this part completely. An incentive in th form of a stealth amnesty - such as you suggest - leaves in place all sorts of negative incentives in the form of increased border crossings, burden on schools, lower supplies of housing, name it.

If we put the onus on employers to determine resident/work status, most of the undocumented population would self-deport because they couldn't get a job.

Then why not more of a robust guest worker program? I have zero problem dropping the hammer on employers who knowingly hire illegals.

Replying to myself: example of waste of resources.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-3-families-...

They were supposed to be protected under a 2023 settlement that granted them temporary legal status and a path to reunification, but they were deported last summer.

He can - and has - provided his interpretation all he wants. The fact is they're here illegally.

Yes, and the first violation is a misdemeanor, so you are correct, it's right up there with public urination.

Then why not more of a robust guest worker program? I have zero problem dropping the hammer on employers who knowingly hire illegals.

I've advocated that for years. Decades, at this point.

It isn't really "stealth amnesty". If they aren't on the radar, they aren't doing anything. So, not causing a problem. If they are causing a problem, they'll soon appear on the radar, and then you use your finite resources to go get them. It's not an amnesty because amnesty is permanent (in general). This isn't permanent. This is "get noticed, get deported".

Also, the court dates are almost always regarding immigration. Not "assault 4". ICE is waiting outside immigration courts to snag people who are trying to obey the rules, showing up for hearings about their cases (immigration/asylum). If anything, that is counterproductive. It's just a misguided effort to meet misguided quotas.

Dope1,

The problem that albaby1 and his less-articulate leftist cronies have is that they think they can declare that immigration laws simply "don't count."

It's absurd and illogical.

Every nano second an illegal alien remains in the country, they are violating the law.

As such, they are chronic law-breakers.

Disrespect for immigration laws means disrespect for ALL laws.

It's signaling enablement and encouragement not just of illegal aliens, but encouraging violation or ignoring of any other pesky laws they don't like.

It's more generally sending out the message that they encourage and welcome a generally lawless society--which they do.

These privileged leftists are the exact same people who would blow a gasket if you took your dog for a walk, let it poop on their front yard, and then left it right there instead of picking it up with a little baggie (that's required where I live and many other places--don't leave your dog's poop on the ground!)

What if said dog-walker and poop-leaver was confronted by albaby1 or any of these other nimrods. Couldn't they just say, "Well, what's your problem? Other than violating the dog poop law, I'M A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Therefore, you cannot enforce the dog poop law against me, and further, you are a NAZI if you enforce the dog poop law against me, and I am entitled to try to run you over with my SUV."

Or parking in front of your driveway so you can't get your car out to go to work in the morning. "Other than blocking your car in by parking illegally, I AM A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Therefore, you are a NAZI if you enforce the illegal parking laws against me."

I mean these people are stupid and illogical. Albaby1 is just more stubborn and articulate and tricky--he's good at "sounding reasonable in tone" yet constantly makes all kinds of false assumptions, unsupported conclusions, and constantly raising straw men.

Albaby1, can my dog crap on your lawn? You good with that? How about every day? How about 100 dog walkers let their dogs crap on your lawn every day and don't pick it up? OTHER THAN BREAKING THE DOG POOP LAW, THEY ARE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Therefore, you are a NAZI if you try to enforce the dog poop law.

Dope1,

These illegal aliens you are talking about are not just criminals and law breakers, they are grifters. They will get away with whatever the can get away with.

"Oh just leave them alone"? (say the crazed leftists). WTF, SMH.

REWARD them for breaking the law? So, that will encourage them to break EVERY law they think they can break and get away with--AND THEY DO.

Like I said in the earlier reply, the same crazed leftists who are OK with law-breaking illegal aliens would lose their minds if you let your dog crap on their lawn and didn't pick it up.

But you know that's a really good excuse--"But judge OTHER THAN BEING A [Whatever] I'm a law abiding citizen."

PROVE IT DUMBASS Albaby. By DEFINITION THEY ARE NOT LAW ABIDING. Fucking fool.

Other than this spare 300 pounds of blubber, I AM IN GREAT SHAPE.

Other than this penis hanging down between my legs, I AM A WOMAN.

Other than the fact that I'm dead broke, I AM VERY PROSPEROUS.

Other than that massive steaming heap of dog poop my dog left on Albaby's front lawn, in his flower patch, and which I didn't pick it up (in violation of the dog poop law), Albaby's FRONT LAWN IS BEAUTIFUL, REFRESHING and FRAGRANT.

The thing is that no one wants to acknowledge - at all - the problems illegal aliens cause for The Community.

-Labor pool displacement
-overloaded schools
-overloaded health care
-incentives Created for human and drug trafficking

…and much more.

The thing is that no one wants to acknowledge - at all - the problems illegal aliens cause for The Community.

And a lot of them work crap jobs that make life a bit more civilized for the rest of us, and pay taxes on their income and property.

That being said, people should not be in the country without papers. State and local authorities should cooperate with Federal officials in enforcing Federal immigration law. Minnesota, as have most other states, has signed on to ICE’s 287(g) Program to cooperate.

ICE’s 287(g) Program

https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g

However, Federal officials calling all immigrants "violent criminals", and all who appose storm trooper tactics "domestic terrorists" is not helpful. Such rhetoric may be intended to inflame passions, just as claims that California, among others, releases criminals on to the street at the end of their sentence, instead of handing them over to ICE, which the Gov of California says is a lie.

Obama deported a lot of people, without so much drama, or bloodletting. As suggested before, the thought is that the inflammatory rhetoric, and violence, is intended for the entertainment of MAGA.

Steve

Then why not more of a robust guest worker program?

MAGA would shit their pants 1000x what Spankee did on TV.

https://www.uniladtech.com/news/truth-behind-bizar...

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1874337609891076

they think they can declare that immigration laws simply "don't count."

You declare they "don't count"--against you. You still have NOT self-deported. Interesting.

that massive steaming heap of dog poop my dog left on Albaby's front lawn

....massive steaming heaps of Spankee poop....

Your lunch has arrived !!!

AND it comes with YOUR XL SPOON.

the problems illegal aliens cause for The Community.

American Indians know it all too well.

Yet you constantly self port a potty, jerry

Jerry, don't blame the rest of us for your mom's home cookin

No such thing as American Indians. They weren't American nor Indian.

"heathen savages" is more accurate

No such thing as American Indians. They weren't American nor Indian.

"heathen savages" is more accurate

ROFLMAO !!!

You self-describing yourself.

Native residents of these two continents--which you can NOT claim. SELF DEPORT.

-Labor pool displacement
-overloaded schools
-overloaded health care
-incentives Created for human and drug trafficking


Will $14.5 trillion cover it?

Cato Study: Immigrants Reduced Deficits by $14.5 Trillion Since 1994

https://www.cato.org/blog/cato-study-immigrants-re...

Just think if they paid full taxes how much it would be.

Just think if they paid full taxes how much it would be.

It's exploitive of us, but they not only pay taxes, they pay social security taxes for benefits they'll never receive. Which, of course, requires a SS number, which -as I mentioned earlier- actually is a crime (because it would be fake or stolen). So, that could put them on the radar for deportation.

And if we put the onus on employers, those jobs will dry-up almost overnight, and we won't get any tax revenues from them. Plus, prices will go up because lots of jobs either won't get done, or will get done with much more expensive labor.

I don't approve of the exploitive nature of this arrangement. Just pointing out the reality. Undocumented migrants reap us a lot of fiscal benefits.

"The problem that albaby1 and his less-articulate leftist cronies have is that they think they can declare that immigration laws simply "don't count."" - Marco the Russian Troll

LOL I don't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that is what leftists think.

You gotta your job better than this. Everyone here knows you are a Russian Troll here trying to sow discord and make it look like Trump and his policies are more popular than they are. Here is a clue Comrade, you are failing. Miserably.

With almost every post you make, you have to post asshole takes in order to defend the indefensible, and it is clear from your language you do not understand America. People can see that. Your posts are turning people away from Trump. They see what you have to say and how terrible you are for saying it and think to themselves they don't want to be associated with people like you. Trump is becoming more and more unpopular. You are helping spread the word about just how despicable his supporters are with every asshole post you make.

On another note, Russia is losing more and more troops in Ukraine. It is reaching the point where it is becoming clear they won't be able to sustain those loses forever. They are even reaching the limits of foreigners and criminals they can send to the front line to die. Soon they are going to have to start cannibalizing other portions of their economy just to find bodies to send to die at the front line. They will get to your job eventually.

Do us a favor. Let us know when your last day working on the Troll farm is and when you transition into becoming an Orc on the Ukrainian front lines.

I don't approve of the exploitive nature of this arrangement. Just pointing out the reality. Undocumented migrants reap us a lot of fiscal benefits.

Yep. In the form of welfare benefits (50%+ of households) overcrowded schools (because nobody can plan for extra kids), overloaded ERs (because of point #1), increased drugs and trafficking, a displaced local labor market, and other joys.

Just think if they paid full taxes how much it would be.

show us a reputable cite where you deduced they don't pay full taxes.

becoming an Orc on the Ukrainian front lines.

I think you mean Orc *remains* being converted into animal and plant food.

SUNLIGHT !! Orcs can't really tolerate it.

a displaced local labor market

Wrong. A "properly aligned" labor market--where YOU have to go plant your own fruits and vegetables, take care of them, AND harvest them.

The only one stopping YOU is YOU.

Stop whining/crying and GET TO WORK ON THE FARM !!

In the form of welfare benefits (50%+ of households)...

You're going to have to justify that number (either a link, or clarifying some details). I did some searching, and was unable to verify that. I'm sure there is fraud in the system (especially among actual citizens). But nothing like you're claiming. The closest I was able to find was that US-born children do receive benefits (since they are citizens), even with undocumented parents. If that's the number you're quoting (which was pretty close), they are US-born citizens. Doesn't count. Plus, you can't deport a citizen. Note that most welfare beneficiaries are children even in US households.

If you don't have documents, you are ineligible for welfare benefits.

Digging a bit further, they are a net-positive on the US economy. Some localities will vary because of costs of education and healthcare (ERs). But they are a net positive impact on the US, generating significant economic activity, filling labor shortages, and paying $23B in taxes in 2023. Numerous links with this information. Just picked this one at random:

https://econofact.org/how-tighter-curbs-on-immigra....

And, to reiterate, I don't approve of the exploitive nature of this. We need to fix this. Just providing data on the realities of it.

Digging a bit further, they are a net-positive on the US economy.

No, they're not.

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/...

And illegals *do* receive welfare:

Illegal immigrants are a net fiscal drain, meaning they receive more in government services than
they pay in taxes. This result is not due to laziness or fraud. Illegal immigrants actually have
high rates of work, and they do pay some taxes, including income and payroll taxes. The
fundamental reason that illegal immigrants are a net drain is that they have a low average
education level, which results in low average earnings and tax payments. It also means a large
share qualify for welfare programs, often receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born
children. Like their less-educated and low-income U.S.-born counterparts, the tax payments of
illegal immigrants do not come close to covering the cost they create.

How about tax payments?
Tax Payments by Illegal Immigrants. Like the misconception that illegal immigrants do not
use welfare, the notion that they do not pay taxes is also mistaken. First, everyone pays some
sales tax and user fees. Even renters pay some property taxes indirectly through their rent. More
importantly, as already mentioned, a large share of illegals have valid Social Security numbers
and work authorization.40 Others have stolen or otherwise acquired documents they provide to
employers. We have previously estimated that more than half (55 percent) of illegal immigrant
earnings are subject to taxation.41 We use this assumption to estimate their likely federal tax
contributions from income and payroll taxes. Based on illegal immigrants in the CPS ASEC, we
estimate that in 2019 before Covid, illegal immigrants paid $5.9 billion in federal income tax.
We also estimate they paid $16.2 billion in Social Security tax and $3.8 billion in Medicaid
taxes, which includes employer contributions to these programs.42 The total contribution by
illegal immigrants to federal coffers from these three taxes was $25.9 billion in 2019.43 While
these numbers are certainly large, they represent less than 1 percent of taxes collected from these
sources.44

If they were legalized in some way, then 100% of them would pay taxes, not just 55%. That takes care of Lambo's question.

What about Social Security or Medicare? Here's some things that help make your point...but not really as I'll explain:
A Net Positive for Social Security and Medicaid. Almost all illegal immigrants are barred
from receiving Social Security and Medicare, so the taxes they pay represent a clear net benefit
to both these programs. However, the positive effect on these programs would become negative
if they were legalized and allowed to receive benefits.45 This is because both programs have
progressive benefit structures that give lower-earning and shorter-career workers a greater return
on their contributions.

One might think, "Oh, having illegals around helps shore up SS and Medicare" but there's a problem with that: what happens when they get old and can't work? They get their health care from the ER.

And illegals *do* receive welfare

So do YOU. Interesting AND irrational contradiction.

what happens when they get old and can't work?

They return to their home countries and retire in luxury. As you did. Oh, you did NOT mention THAT fact? How interesting!!

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.